Feeds:
Posts
Comments

https://cdn3.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/220x137/public/images/methode/2018/01/26/1eb0210a-0256-11e8-b181-443655c1d2b1_image_hires_183903.JPG?itok=xwwzBHMW

That man walked 42 km in the snow just to get home in time for chunjie. A country at peace begins at home. Confucius: If the family is harmonious, so will the country.

Elsewhere, snow thaw leaves behind icesicles, above — a clear sign spring has arrived.

May our ancestors protect us and keep us free from Mohamed and Jesus. (Got the above on my WeChat)

Jian in a greatly distorted studio touch-up portrait.

*

Much has happened the past year: Jian’s circumstances are far, far better; she kept her beauty, we kept our love; there was a lot, lot more snow than the two previous winters combined; the dirt road passing my family’s mountain, lakeside home was finally paved, 12-feet wide, eight inches of concrete running along the maize and rapeseed farms, now in winter fallow; the high speed trains that bring us back and will soon return us to the cities continued to be on time, right to the second; and my motherland remained Islam free and Jesus free. We kept our freedom — from God.

This year, we will keep on with our progress.

Once Upon a Time…

*

China Acts to Bring Home the Chinese Diaspora

“I so happy to balik tongsan“: The above ad was put up on several social web sides, such as Linked-In. You can come home now. But what does it take?

*

China’s immigration treatment of the overseas Chinese are in two broad categories: (a) those in Greater China, meaning holding passports from Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao, and (b) all other nationalities. The first are permitted into China and then to stay almost as long they wish with all the same social and economic rights as mainland nationals. The second follows whatever bilateral relations are agreed upon.

This year, February onward, immigration policy for overseas Chinese has been modified. Like those in Greater China, overseas Chinese will be entitled to a resident card (which is not a ‘green card’). The offer is discriminatory and is for native Chinese only. All other ethnics, white people, Caucasians, Malaiyoos, Pinoys, Javans, whatever, are not entitled to it.

There is only one requisite to be eligible for the diaspora card: a Chinese must have official, documented evidence that one parent or grandparent or any ancestor was once a Chinese, regardless of how long ago. It could go as far back as the Song dynasty and even Han, 2,000 years ago. Such an evidence, for example, may be a disembarkation/landing card that would show a Chinese forefather had traveled, say, in 1930, arriving in Singapore from ‘Amoy’ (today Xiamen) on such and such a ship.

The diaspora resident card replaces the passport and visa for entry and for an uninterrupted stay in China for between five and 10 years. Residence comes with nearly all the rights of China nationals and dependents: opening bank accounts, access to credit cards, loans, schooling, setting up a business, owning landed property, and so on.

With this Chinese freedom card, we are one step away from the 2016-proposed Ethnic Chinese Card, the EEC. The EEC is the equal of Hong Kong’s 回乡证, ‘Native Home Returning Certificate or the 台胞证 ‘Taiwan Compatriot Certificate‘. Although named differently, the two certificates — actually they look and function like your ID card — serve the same purpose: uninterrupted residence in China with associated rights, all without losing your nationality status. (Naturally, taking up China nationality after that will be a breeze.)

When the card was launched in January, non-Chinese, westerners in particular, begun complaining — as usual. They had expected China to copy the West on immigrant policies. Labeling the new immigrant card ‘racist’, they say that what America has, as for example, a ‘green card’, China should follow. As usual, too, the English language, anti-China press was wrong. Two years ago, Singapore’s Straits Times had said a special permanent residency card won’t be issued to overseas Chinese. (Told you so: never trust the Anglophile. What the fuck do they know? They can’t even write their mother’s name in hanzi.)

Annie of the Valley is eligible to apply. So, too, Ridhuan Tee. But Ah Tee better watch his tongue when in China…. We are watching you, boy.

Below are samples of English language comments from some overseas Chinese:

oriental‘: I now rest my hope with the PLA of the Peoples Republic of China to at least safe-guard and protect the overseas Chinese community world-wide…..particularly those in Indonesia under the hands of the politicians and Armed Forces! You and I know this Muslim BINATANG’s mindsets.

malaysianconcerns‘: That’s a welcoming news. Thank you, China.

***

Below are three versions of the same, 80-year-old folk song. It is one of the glories of China’s performing arts and Jian’s favorite (which she insists it be posted).

Advertisements

Mahathir Mohamad’s fascist mouthpiece Demi Negara prides the keris as a symbol of Malay power and supremacy to make others, Chinese in particular, their subjects. Perkasa uses it, as did Mahathir and numerous others.

These Malaiyoos… they are such losers: they have to import the steel to make a short, crooked dagger, and then they will be hacked dead (weapons below) before they have it unsheathed.

These Malaiyoos… Even in warfare they have neither refinement nor art.

http://i1.go2yd.com/image.php?url=0F8OOejD2E

*

At Syed Akbar Ali, the Perkasa racist extraordinaire named Demi Negara (also called Kijang Mas) has begun calling Malaysia his ‘motherland’.

Well, well, well…. we didn’t know he has a mother.

Ever wonder if Demi asked permission from the peninsula tribes, the Orang Asli, the Dayaks and Kadazans before making the ‘motherland’ claim. Ever wonder if Syed Akbar would concur, that, as a mamak, he, too, would regard Malaysia as the motherland of an Indian and a Muslim? To say that Malaysia is the motherland of a Bugis is a contradiction in terms, No? Or, perhaps Motherland of Nusantara pirates?

Bah.

If that wasn’t enough — poor Demi, he doesn’t even know what’s entailed in the term ‘motherland’ — he then talks about ‘our common destiny. A task for ALL Malaysians.’

Two things are fundamentally wrong with that statement. (1) It is unIslamic. (2) Since destiny is a matter for Allah alone to decide — inshaallah — then the Chinese and the aborigines can have nothing to do with the ‘task’. After all, on all three counts of bangsa, agama dan negara, such a task can have nothing to do with us.

Next time, you want a favor from Cinakui, go down on your knees, beg, and lick our arses, from the shoes up.

Pakatan Harapan gets (some more) Malay votes, we Chinese transfer ours to BN. Umno loses the Malay vote, we vote Umno. It’s, you see, a matter of balance of power.

Malaiyoo keris the Malaiyoo. Kijang keris Najib. One pirate knifes another pirate. Adoi….

Here, for the Chinese electorate — after (a) don’t vote, and (b) #undirosak — is the third, more effective voting strategy: Vote BN. That, for sure, will save Malaysia, from the Malays like Demi Negara, Mahathir Mohamad, et al.

(See, Annie, that’s a good reason to go back to Johor. You are a big girl now, so you know where to mark the ballot, yes?)

BTW, Demi, did you really say, ‘a task for ALL Malaysians’? Your emphasis? Or did mamak Syed misquote? If you want our votes, just say so. Instead of going on and on and on with your infantile polemics and your absurd racist yada, yada. What’s the matter with your tongue? You came out of mother’s arsehole, tail first?

Here’s our Cinakui’s answer to your plea: Go fuck your motherland’s Java mother.

Or was she from Sumatra? Celebes? Maybe Kerala?

And motherland? Bah….

PRU14 is when we Chinese will, once again, fix the Malaiyoos. As the Cantonese would say, 14 = sure die. Know what that entails, Demi?

These Malaiyoos… as fucked up as the country they seized, occupied, and now under their management.

Let’s have more of them.

Slave Trade by the Malays

Like the woman and child below, the Chinese, many millennia moons ago, were once a mountain people. More than ever before, we must assist the present mountain people to resist Malays, Islam — and Anglophiles.

This year we Chinese dedicate Dog Year, in warm, loyal friendship to the natives, the Orang Asli, the mountain people: Their lives are our lives; their sufferings our sufferings.

We had had enough of running away from Mahathir Mohamad, from Umno, from Malays and the power they stole. We’ll stand up to them, we’ll resist and fight them. We know how.

https://i.malaysiakini.com/1131/db058f982caaf4a9c34c7ec44fa860d2.jpeg

A Sad Short History in the Origin of Malay Power

The trail of Malay destruction that Mahathir Mohamad subsequently refined in the modern era, by exploiting Malay sentiments to cement his personal political power, had begun much earlier. Malays, Mahathir said, were a tolerant and generous lot. Yet this wasn’t how history had recorded the truth about the Malays and the Malay chiefs specifically.

Most glaringly, the Orang Asli (above photo) paid for this Malay destruction with their lives: Malays would hunt them to death.

Joshua Woo Sze Zeng’s article below about this destruction, though exonerates the West, dismisses a crucial point: What is the source of Malay political power and power over the lives of other peoples if not colonial British rule?

Western recognition of Malay chiefs, thus giving the latter political and moral legitimacy, was to the detriment of the wider population. The Orang Asli, the actual natives, were merely the first of their victims.

With recognition of the Malays, all the ‘Tanah Melayu‘ rights of the Natives were thrown out the window. This rule-by-fiat persecution was identical to the way American natives had paid for with their lives from White invasion and plunder.

For 200 years up until the early 1900s, the West, Britain in particular, were also doing their own slavery. More than 20 million Africans were shipped from one end of the world to the other; one third would be dead before they arrived. Another third were so weakened from conditions in fetid cargo holds, they were dead not long after.

Conveniently, Woo (a banana Christian and Anglophile) ignores that point as well, holding up the White Man instead as the beacon of civilization’s hope in the Malay destruction. If however the West had annihilated that lot of Malay slave traders and pirates, that is, the Malay system — as they did from the Yukon mountains to the tip of Argentina — then Malaysia, or a Malaysia by another name, would have been better for it. But history continues to be unkind to us: it gave us a mamak by the name of Mahathir.

***

Malay Occupation via its Slave Trade of Natives

From Malaysiakini:

By Joshua Woo Sze Zeng

One disturbing aspect arose from the (Ismail Mina) controversy is how history, or the lack thereof, has been distorted to instil racial antagonism among ethnic groups.

Such a malicious tactic is still being used because history is more than a record of the past, it shapes how we see ourselves and others in the present.

Learning about our colonial past in the 1900s is a case in point. My generation was taught that the British were the exploiters of our land and the destroyers of our local traditions.

Such indoctrination has led many to believe that the West is the immoral agent of decadence. The West is thus conveniently scapegoated so that the ruling regime can get us to see ourselves as victims, to see the West as a threat, and to see the present rulers as our needed defenders.

That is the recipe for a siege mentality, a proven method to win votes.

I am not here defending colonialism or the West, but to point out one piece of our history that has been forgotten, not even footnoted in history textbooks. That is the fact that it was the British who liberated the bumiputeras (Malays and Orang Asli) from slavery, a cruel age-old trade practised by locals for hundreds of years.

An old tradition

There was a saying in the sixteenth century Melaka, “[It] is better to have slaves than to have land, because slaves are a protection to their masters.”

Slavery was a valued regional trade, woven into the economy and social fabric of the local society. It was, contrary to today’s society, a widespread and perfectly acceptable practice in Malaya, before the arrival of the British.

“In the early period,” remarked historian Nordin Hussin, “slaves were an integral part of Melaka, the descendants of those who had lived within the socio-cultural context of the old Malay world.” The Italian trader John of Empoli, after he visited Melaka, wrote in 1514 of a certain “Utama Diraja” who owned 8,000 slaves.

In the mid-seventeenth century, slaves comprised more than 30 percent of Melaka town’s population. According to anthropologists Robert Knox Dentan, Kirk Endicott, Alberto G Gomes, and MB Hooker, the practice of slavery was common among the ancient kingdoms in Southeast Asia. When the Portuguese and Dutch colonised Melaka, they “took advantage of this old practice and kept the slave trade alive as a cheap means of obtaining labour.”

Two types of slavery

Slavery in Malaya has its own characteristics. As historians Barbara and Leonard Andaya describe in their important chronicle:

“Europeans tended to define such slavery in Western terms and to see slaves as an undifferentiated group of people condemned to lives of unrelenting misery. But among Malays, slaves were generally divided into two classes: slaves in the Western sense, and debt bondsmen. The latter type of slavery served a particular function in Malay society. Debt slavery usually occurred when an individual voluntarily ‘mortgaged’ himself in return for some financial assistance from his creditor, frequently his ruler or chief.”

Other scholars likewise note that, “There were even two ranks of slaves, “debt slaves” (orang berhutang), who lost their freedom by being unable to repay a debt, being above “bought slaves” (abdi). In theory, debt slaves – usually Malays in the Malay kingdoms – were freemen with some rights, while bought slaves had none.”

However, theory and practice are different. As pointed out by anthropologist Kirk Endicott: “In theory, debt-slaves could redeem themselves by repayment of the debt but in practice, this was virtually impossible because work performed by the debt-slave did not count toward reduction of the original debt.”

The arrival of the British

When they came to power in Malaya, the British began to register slaves, partly because they wanted to abolish the practice. “[The] English administration,” wrote Hussin, “made a compulsory order for all slave masters to register their slaves with the police. Regulation was passed and those who refused to register would see the slaves liberated.”

From their record, we know that there were male and female slaves, and child slavery was also a norm: “In 1824 the number in the town of Melaka was 666 males and 590 females, with 86 under-aged males and 75 under-aged females, making a total of 1,417 slaves, including 161 children born into slavery.”

“In Perak the issue of slavery,” according to the Andayas, “was more apparent than in Selangor because the Perak ruling class was considerably larger. In Perak, slaves and debt bondsmen numbered an estimated 3,000 in a total Malay population of perhaps 50,000 (approximately six percent).”

Apparently, one record shows that the price for a slave in Kinta, Perak was “Two rolls of coarse cloth, a hatchet, a chopper and an iron cooking-pot.”

The cruelty of slavery

Slavery, as practised in Malaya as well as in other parts of the world, involved rampant cruelty and injustice. Slaves were generally despised. They were kidnapped, sold, abused, raped, and killed.

Some slaves were born into slavery, inheriting their parent’s enslavement. Slaves were deemed sub-human. Thus, common folks would not even want to carry out tasks that were affiliated to slaves.

As a mid-sixteenth century record states, “You will not find a native Malay, however poor he be, who will lift on his own back his own things or those of another, however much he be paid for it. All their work is done by slaves.”

Slaves owners on the hand are dignified and reputable. Malay chiefs would raid villages and rural settlement to hunt for their human commodity.

Due to Islamic teaching that forbids enslaving fellow Muslims, the indigenous people, or Orang Asli, who weres labelled as ‘Sakai’ (slave) or ‘kafir’ (infidel) became the usual target. The Orang Asli were the “greatest local source of slaves”.

Walter Skeat and Charles Blagden recorded certain Orang Asli’s account in the period between late nineteenth to early twentieth century:

“Hunted by the Malays, who stole their [Orang Asli] children, they were forced to leave their dwellings and fly hither and thither, passing the night in caves or in huts (“pondok”), which they burnt on their departure. ‘In those days,’ they say, ‘we never walked in the beaten tracks lest the print of our footsteps in the mud should betray us.’”

One of the survivors recalled, “Many of my brethren were killed and many others were taken away as slaves…”

A British Royal Navy officer Sherard Osborn wrote in 1857 on how Orang Asli “were tied up or caged just as we should treat chimpanzees.” Sir Frank A Swettenham, the Resident of Selangor from 1882 to 1884, reported a case to the British Parliament in July 1882: “[A] Chief from Slim had a fortnight before captured 14 Jacoons and one Malay in Ulu Selangor, had chained them and driven them off to Slim.”

Those slave raids, wrote activists for Orang Asli Jannie Lasimbang and Colin Nicholas, had “prompted many Orang Asli groups to retreat further inland and to avoid contact with outsiders. For the most part, from this time the Orang Asli lived in remote communities, each within a specific geographical space (such as a river valley) and isolated from the others.”

“Sometimes,” notes Endicott, “Malays tempted or coerced Orang Asli into kidnapping other Orang Asli for them in order to ‘preserve their own women-fold from captivity.’” But ultimately those who were captured will be traded and enslaved by the Malays.

The slave owners “reduce [the Orang Asli] to the condition of hunted outlaws, to be enslaved, plundered, and murdered by the Malay chiefs at their tyrannous will and pleasure.”

Like all forced servitude, the captured individuals suffer greatly at the hands of their master. “Owners could neglect, abuse, or even kill the [slave] at will.”

There are also instances where one Malay tribe subdues another Malay tribe to slavery. As recorded by Skeat and Blagden:

“The Mantra of Malacca have suffered like other aboriginal tribes from the raids and incursions of the neighbouring Malays, their most implacable foes being the members of a Malay tribe called Rawa. This people are natives of a country in Sumatra called Rawa, Rau, and Ara… They are now settled in considerable numbers in Rembau, Sungei Ujong, and the western part of Pahang… [Large] bands of them, under one Bata Bidohom, who was reputed invulnerable, attacked the Mantra in several places, killing many of the men and carrying away more than a hundred of their women and girls into Pahang, where they sold them as slaves. The Rawa declared that they would hunt down the Mantra everywhere and deal with them all in the same way.”

The theoretical distinction between debt-slave and actual slave was used by Malay-Muslim rulers and aristocrats to enslave fellow Muslims.

Although the practice of slavery differs in different parts of the world, in the case of Malaya, “Admittedly the lot of many, especially the women, was indeed deplorable. Slaves proper were often subject to rank exploitation because they were non-Moslem Orang Asli and were therefore considered outside the pale of the Melayu. Among the debt slaves [Malay-Muslim slaves owned by Malay-Muslims] there were also cases of cruelty and other abuses; a chief, for example, might not mistreat his debt slaves but simply refuse to accept payment when the debt fell due.”

Subjecting the entire family to slavery was common through the debt-slavery system. As Endicott remarked, “Usually spouse of debt-slaves were included in the debt and in the resulting state of servitude, and all children born of debt-slaves were debt-slaves as well.”

The prestige of slave-owning

Despite its systemic cruelty, slave ownership was a local prestige, a symbolic status for Malay chiefs and sultans. Slave ownership testifies to one’s power and stature in the society. Slaves were the “main labour force” for the Malay chiefs and sultans.

“The motive for keeping slaves,” according to anthropologist Robert Knox Dentan, “is prestige.” As the logic goes, “For male aristocrats in precolonial Malay society, as for such men in most patriarchal regimes, the prestige comes in part from their power to coerce sex from attractive women.”

Besides that, slaves are a visible indication of wealth since they are a commodity in the then economy. “Through debt bondage, chiefs and rulers gained followers to increase their status and an economic asset which could be transferred, if need be, to some other creditor.”

“Ownership of slaves,” as Hussin writes, “was a measure of one’s wealth and the more slaves one owned the greater one’s status and prestige.”

The more slaves a Malay chief or sultan owns, the wealthier he is perceived to be. Thus, the Utama Diraja mentioned earlier, who owned 8,000 slaves, was also reported as the wealthiest merchant among his contemporary.

Slavery was a key institution

“Malay custom and Islamic law,” wrote Cambridge University’s historian Iza Hussin, “allowed for slaveholding, and the power of a ruler was judged in part by the size of his retinue, making slavery a key institution of Malay society when the British arrived in Malay.”

The Malay chiefs, elites, and sultans benefited from – and thus perpetuated -slavery. Therefore, slavery was not a fringe practice among some inhumane underground syndicate, but a traditional custom in the Malay worldview, a cornerstone of the community’s economy, social structure, and politics, uncontroversial and allowed by religion.

Referring to the slavery in Perak, Swettenham wrote that it was one of the “pillars of the State,” and “every one of any position had debt slaves of their own.”

Given such centrality, any hint of its disruption, in the like of policing and abolishment, will be seen as seditious to the Malays.

As the Andayas wrote: “[Because] slavery was so bound up with a chief’s prestige, British inquiries into alleged mistreatment aroused considerable resentment among Malay nobles. Sultan Abdul Samad of Selangor was so incensed by the intrusive questions that he refused point-blank to permit his slaves to be counted.”

The British attempt to abolish local slavery

The Pangkor Treaty signed on Jan 20, 1874 legitimised British’s colonialism over the Malay states and designated Abdullah (leader of lower Perak), rather than his rival Ismail (upper Perak), as the twenty-sixth sultan of Perak.

The treaty also led to the appointment of JWW Birch to be the Resident in Perak, through whom the British exercised indirect rule over the state.

To the Malay chiefs, the treaty also meant that the “Resident could not interfere with Malay custom [“adat”] and they could continue to capture and enslave as many aborigines as they like.”

However, less than a year in office, Birch was murdered by the Malay chiefs. And one of the main reasons for his assassination was Birch’s opposition against the Malays’ highly-valued adat, a key institution of their society: slavery.

This bloody episode was so well-known that thirty years after Birch’s murder, Swettenham could still recount:

“In the courses of his wanderings Mr Birch met with numerous cases of great oppression; poor people fined and even murdered for supposed offences, traders squeezed and robbed, and men, women, and children subjected to the infamous practice of debt-slavery… The practice of debt-slavery was particularly rife in Perak, and as Mr Birch determinedly set his face against it and helped several of the most oppressed to get out of the country, his action did not increase his popularity with the chiefs. Sultan Abdullah and the Lower Perak chiefs were amongst the worst offenders in this respect… they began to consider how they could get rid of the British Adviser, who interfered with their most cherished privileges, the collection of taxes, the power to fine and kill, and the institution of debt-slavery.”

Birch’s abhorrence over slavery is recorded in his diary: “[Men] and women of the country of the Sakkais or wild people of the interior are captured after being hunted down, and are then sold, and made slaves. These poor people, from what I have seen, are worse treated than any other slaves.”

Birch’s attempt to abolish slavery was perceived by the locals as a threat to their symbolic social stature, intrusive to their way of life. In practical terms, the human commodity, with its accompanying prestige, labour force, and economic asset, belonged to the Malay chiefs but was stolen from them.

As the Andayas described: “[Birch’s] attitude to slavery and his willingness to provide a sanctuary for fugitive debt slaves, especially women, was regarded by Malays as simple theft.”

Nonetheless, abolishing slavery was a must for the Resident. The stake that Birch probably did not realise for wanting to eliminate slavery from the Malay world would be his life. His assassination resulted in the Perak War, the trial and execution of his murderer Maharaja Lela Pandak Lam, and the deposition of the sultan.

Nonetheless, many of us were taught that Maharaja Lela was a nationalistic martyr who fought against the oppressive British for intruding their way of life.

Our school’s history classes do not tell us that Westerners like Birch had lost their lives partly due to their effort to help, shelter, and free Bumiputera slaves. Instead, they are demonised as threats from the West who came to destroy the locals’ cherished tradition.

Despite the violent reaction against the Resident, the British were resolute to eliminate slavery in Malaya. Not even the Perak War could deter them.

Conclusion

Since the signing of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty on 17 March 1824, which established British’s rule over Malaya, the colonial administrator took active measures to phase out slavery. In the seventeenth century, more than 30 percent of the Melaka town’s population were slaves. By 1827, the slave population was less than 11 percent.

When the British politician Edmund Wodehouse inquired about Malaya’s slavery in the parliament on 19 May 1884, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, Evelyn Ashley replied, “All slave debtors became free in Perak on January 1st of this year, so that slavery of any description is now illegal there, as it already was in Selangor and Sungei Ujong.”

In 1901, the British appointed Giovanni Battista Cerruti, an Italian explorer known for his deep affection for the Orang Asli, to be Malaya’s Superintendent of the Sakai. All forms of slavery by 1915, a year after Cerruti’s passing, were officially abolished.

Commenting on the slavery custom that has lasted for centuries in Malaya, Cerruti wrote: “The British Protectorate came as a blessing to the Sakais because it officially abolished slavery and shortened their neighbours’ talons, that had grown a little too long.”

The same blessing had also come to many Malays who were trapped as debt-slaves, whose great-great-grandchildren are now being taught to hate the West, so that the present regime will continue to remain in power.


Joshua Woo Sze Zeng is municipal councillor with the Seberang Perai Municipal Council (MPSP).

Relax. I, Ultra. Good.

https://shuzheng.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/18966-annie.jpg?w=500

Below is a truncated version of a conversation between Jian and I. A part of it had to do with Annie (above image). This took place some time ago and began, as with such things, a boy-girl exchange:

Jian [twitting her eyebrows]: Do you have a Malay girl friend? Tell me honestly.

Me: It was a long time ago.

Jian [her voice, pleading, was raised a few decibels]: Is that a yes? Tell me.

Me: One year in a Chinese high school. It was a mixed girl-boy class.

Jian: Do you still talk with her?

Me: Of course, not. I don’t even remember her name.

Jian: Is she pretty?

Me: Not half as you.

Jian: What are Malay girls like?

Me: What do you mean?

Jian: Do they dress well? Are they tall? Pretty? Can they make money?

Me: They are darker skin. Never as tall as you. Some are pretty, some not-so. Come in all types. All wear the same clothes, same fashion. Make money? They don’t need to. Malaysia government takes care of that.

Jian: What do you mean same clothes?

On my notebook, on Baidu, I typed ‘马来人’ — malairen — then click on photos. Soon all sorts of images appeared. I skipped the tourist and wedding stuff, and picked those with lots of tudung, something like the one below.

She might be pleased by my responses so far, though there’s no telling. If she were, it would be because she beats all the competition. Which is true. At work or on the street, Jian is stunning in her beauty and demeanor. Think of 張曼玉 Zhang Manyu or Maggie Cheung walking down the alley or going up the stairs in 花样年华 The Prime of Life (also titled, badly, In the Mood for Love) and you are pretty close to picturing her persona.

On the monitor, she points to a tudung pair on the beach: You say it’s 33 degrees, but why do they wear that? Don’t they feel hot?

Seeing the way they dress, even I feel hot. Cannot ‘tahan‘.

What? What did you just say?

Nothing, it’s just a Malay word: I said I can’t stand the heat even just looking.

Have you slept with her?

I didn’t hesitate and could have said right off: ‘It’s dangerous, sleeping with a Malay. She can go to jail’, but that would mean going into Islam, and there it gets troublesome, in spite of Syed Akbar Ali singing the wonders of the Quran that is equally convoluted. One look at it, Malaysia isn’t just bizarre; it is madness, day in, day out, with all that delusional piety yada, yada. I simply answered, No.

No?

Really, no. The most was, hold hands. Once, one kiss, on the cheek. That’s all, I swear.

Why do you go out with Malay girls? Why don’t you go out with Chinese girls?

Chinese girls didn’t ask me. She did. I was just stupid then.

Do you know any Chinese girl?

Of course. I have many relatives, and daughters of relatives.

I know your relatives. Not relatives. Non-related.

From the school.

What about, now? Do you still talk with them?

Now? Of course not. I hadn’t been back for years, except for chunjie. You know that.

I mean, online. Do you talk with them? On WeChat.

No. Except relatives.

I know. Non-relatives. Not one?

Here is hesitation. My reply was slow and calculated — on technical grounds. WeChat is available in Malaysia, yes, and in use. But, more likely, she meant WhatsApp which isn’t available in China. Then it struck me: Do blog platforms count, WordPress and Blogspot, though they aren’t actual communication exchange devices. These aren’t available in China. There are three ways around the firewall, one of which is legit. You simply ask the Public Security Bureau for clearance. You’d ask if you knew the chance of succeeding is a hundred percent. Jian also put in a word, and that must have helped. She knows about this site, therefore, but don’t read it because she can’t, unless a post is in Chinese and when we are separated by physical distance. It occurred to me, as well, should I tell her about the blog readers and the other Malaysia sites I visit.

But, is Annie Chinese?

I showed Jian Annie’s home page. Does this count? The site has no selfie photo other than a portrait line sketch on the top right corner. Pointing to it, I said, her name is an-ni 安妮. I have never met her. And she is not Chinese.

The page might as well be Greek. Jian doesn’t care and is the least bit curious. She twitched her lips, What?, then lifting her head turned to the clock. Never mind, she answered again. Never mind.

Outside is dark. Night comes early in winter. We hadn’t had a full meal the entire day. Shall I cook, she asked. Or, shall we go out.

I stepped up to the window, in my mind a bottle of warm wine, preferably maotai. On the side of the pavement below, beneath the lamps, week-old snow had turned gray and into mush. The weather looks clear. Let’s eat out, I said. She said, mmm. I switched off the heater, and we put on our overcoats and our gloves. We stepped out. In her knee-high boots, we are almost shoulder-to-shoulder height. She locked the door and we went down the long corridor to the lift, her heels emitting a faint echo. Stepping into the night, she grips me on the hand. I wrap my arm around her waist.

Then came a sense of guilt, thoughts returning to one of the previous postings made days and weeks ago: I really shouldn’t have been so harsh on Annie. Even so, had I not spoken the truth? Was I not right, even today? That Malaysia is just, as Donald Trump might describe it, a shithole. A pig’s shithole. Annie’s moronic, bigoted fans — plus those Anglophiles — are welcome to populate and wade in that shit.

We live in a crowd, not alone to ourselves, bloggers especially. Annie depends on the crowd. Upon them you draw sustenance and meaning and purpose. The century of the individual, indivisible self is today replaced by the century of the crowd, 99 percent of who burrowing in, commenting in your posts, do so unthinking because they have no brains. They are just a lot fart that they readily throw up as a matter of habit. Yet it is the crowd you live for. But not I, since an ultra, on the fringe, is never adored. Leave Malaysia, Annie. Forget the crowd, this 99 percent. Can’t you smell their stink? Take the blog with you, even take your crowd if that’s what you want. But leave. There is a world bigger and more interesting than Malaysia. Or, do you worry about patriotism?

*

Jian, a semblance portrait.

*

My Love is in the mountains,

Breeze, please take my words to her

***

On the 10 percent Proton discount:

What the Chinese possess, Malays must also have. What Malays have, the Chinese cannot, must not possess.

If Proton were offered at 10 percent discount to Malays, would Abdul Rahman (below) complain? Would MIC’s S Vell Paari dare to shout racism?

Everything the Malays touched to-date, they ruin. Everything. And still, they won’t let the Chinese have a go at it because, for the Chinese to succeed — even if this means Malay jobs and prosperity — it will show they are losers. Since Mahathir Mohamad, Malays are a cursed lot.

These motherfuckers…. Death to the Fascist!

https://i.malaysiakini.com/1206/0e7bea00d7908cbf4b20e9c43436eda6.jpeg

伊斯玛(Isma)的Abdul Rahman Mat Dali: 这个人只是一个喋喋不休的空头法西斯主义者

***

李春荣先生

你好。福建协会你做的是合法的。不要被指责,特别是来自政党和马来组织(例如 Isma)的指责吓倒伊斯玛 (Isma) 是一个法西斯纳粹马来组织   像马来西亚这样的组织他们致力于镇压华人。

如果你给乌节友或马来组织10%的折扣,没有人敢抱怨。马来人得到30%的折扣 没有人抱怨。马来人获得银行贷款利率优惠,没有人抱怨。被迫卖给马来人,华人公司股票以市场折扣价格没有人抱怨。

在马来西亚,种族隔离是官方政策。 种族歧视是官方政策。 因此,你正在遵循官方的政策。种族歧视是官方政策。因此你是正在遵循官方的政策。

大多数报纸(英和马来文)都只是吠叫狗。印度政党 (MIC, 下面) 也是一只吠叫的狗。伊斯玛 (Isma)只是一只跑步狗。一旦政府指示他们,他们就会闭嘴。

你的公司新闻声明处理这种情况的真实方法。把事情说放下 在多说也没用。马来西亚人大多数只是很多屁。事情会过去的。 防人之心不可无。马来西亚包含Proton的情况是这样, 死马当活马医。

最重要的是 害人之心不可有。 可惜而不是现在抱怨的人。

人算不如天算。英语中有一种说法:

Of all the characteristics of ordinary human nature envy is the most unfortunate; not only does the envious person wish to inflict misfortune and do so whenever he can with impunity, but he is also himself rendered unhappy by envy. Instead of deriving pleasure from what he has, he derives pain from what others have. — Bertrand Russell

https://i.malaysiakini.com/1159/410437059e23a0ef57130095fd55497c.jpeg

Envy-laden S Vell Paari, MIC, 是一个马来走狗

***

马来西亚今天的情况。Malaysia Today…

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/08/e0/1708e098391b17b59d009a185e85c280.jpg

***

看看记者如何制造假新闻

Watch how Malaysiakini manufactures news & views

*

邮局发行纪念邮票系列。 欢迎您购买,或不买。 马来西亚的马来西亚人以其违反伊斯玛 – 佩尔卡萨的阿拉伯道德而来。 它问人们邮票是不是敏感的! 就像阿卜杜勒·拉赫曼·达利像PAS一样,像Isma一样,像伊玛目和muftis一样 Malaysiakini 制造一个不存在的问题。 谁说,这是一个问题?

你必须要怜悯马来人。 他必须证明马来西亚人拥有一些邮票,因为他不需要。 这是记者如何扭曲新闻 采取商业和知识 歪曲为宗教道德问题。

颜重庆 肏你的妈

*

The Post Office issues a commemorative stamp series. You are welcome to buy it, or not. Along comes Malaysiakini with its perverse Isma-Perkasa Arab morality, asking if the stamp issue is insensitive! Like Abdul Rahman Mat Dali, like PAS, like Isma and like the imams and muftis, Malaysiakini manufactures an issue, a problem, where none exists. Because, who says it’s an ‘issue’? It’s only Malaysiakini that does.

And you’d have to pity the Malay man having to justify — to Malaysiakini, for crying out loud — for wanting some nice stamps because he didn’t need to.

See how Anglophiles adopt an act of commerce, converts knowledge then twist it and burdens it under the yoke of religious morality. Malaysiakini wasn’t soliciting views. They were goading towards some explosive outcome; they were attempting to provoke. Truly, there are no greater motherfuckers in the planet.

Steven Wonder Gan, go fuck your mother.

This is the Proton ‘issue’ all over again. Some ‘issue’…. Next time reporters talk to you, tell them, ‘Fuck off’.

***


https://shuzheng.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/4499787.jpg?w=500

My Love is in the mountains,

Breeze, please take my words to her…

 

Better Dead than Patriotic

Name one fucking patriotic Malaiyoo then tell me what he (in Malay-Muslim society, women don’t count) looks like?

*

https://i.malaysiakini.com/1204/16cc7b25fc03597a9a23e975cfc35b30.jpeg

Patriotism Means Masuk Melayu

…therefore, they are no patriotic Chinese.

*

Talking of Malay power and Malay culture, is there a difference between the Malaiyoos seated above and those below. They still weaponize patriotism to threaten the Chinese.

All of them, from top to bottom, had never wanted the Chinese around, only saying the same thing — patriotism — in varied tongues, arguing as if the Chinese are a chain, holding back Malay progress. In short, if the Malay is miserable, blame the Chinese. In consequence, therefore, even Chinese citizenship rights are controlled by Malays — Mahathir has made this plain and clear a thousand times. When he had much to gain politically, from the Malays especially, all the pretense of tolerance vanishes.

Today, after Mahathir, those below don’t even bother to pretend anymore: keluar, they say. Now they again threaten the Chinese, this time with our children who, they say, will never, never get scholarship and also with our businesses which will be forced to hire Malays. In the past, under Mahathir, they threatened with the IC and the passport.

Malays — and Malaysia — have taken so much and stolen from us, yet they aren’t satiated. From the looks of things, the only way they will be satisfied is we Chinese are ‘patriotic’, by which they mean (a) become or ‘masuk’ Melayu, and, (b) dirt poor, crawling on our knees begging Malays like dogs.

Here’s our Chinese answer to Malaiyoos, all of you, Mahathir and Umno in particular: we aren’t going to take anymore of this shit. We, all Chinese, aim to fix the Malays and Malaysia even if this means ruination for some of us, even if this takes decades, but we are patient. Unlike you, crowing and thumping your chest, we won’t be bragging about it once we are done with you because you won’t know what hit you.

https://i.malaysiakini.com/1204/4c6238e1f809755d34d065ec7941feb3.jpeg

 

The Patriotic Malay is a Dead Malay

*

Malaysiakini has hundreds of reporters, editors, columnists, correspondents, commenters especially, who, if they don’t simply regurgitate, will daily filled up the online newspaper with shit. Sometimes, amid the garbage, you might just find a gem. There are only two writers who can produce anything close to resemble original thinking. S Thayaparan is one of them.

But his latest essay, ‘Why would non-Malays be patriotic to this country?’ is not (yet?) profound thinking. It is nerve wrecking though because, more than likely, what he said has lay in the hearts of millions. You would have read most of those thoughts here already.

Even his essay heading is mangled. The word ‘would‘ ought to be ‘should‘ and the phrase ‘to this country‘ is simply redundant, therefore, meaningless. There are no non-Malays in Malaysia, there are just Chinese, Indians, the Natives and assorted Others. By non-Malays, the speaker Ismail Mina Ahmad mean Chinese, and only Chinese.

Most Chinese are not patriotic to Malaysia — what is there to like anyway, waved the fucking flag and shout from the rooftop? What we Chinese understand by patriotism and what Malays want in patriotism from Chinese, Thaya doesn’t say. Nor do the Malays. Let’s then say it for them. Patriotism means to keep the Chinese as minions, as Malay slaves, only then will Malays be satiated and only then will we be considered by them to be patriotic. (Related definitions of patriotism are also given above.)

Hence, all that Ismail Mina and his coterie of the Malay ummah say are not new: keluar Malaysia, only Malays are good and loyal, and so on. You would have heard versions of it countless times before Ismail, in the past by Mahathir Mohamad, and, after him, versions of it from the like of Utusan, Kadir Jasin, Ridhuan Tee and Annie of the Valley. When Najib Razak and Umno politicians claim that the Malays will suffer if DAP controls the government, we, including Malays, know what they mean: It’s the Chinese — again.

Since The Malay Dilemma, Mahathir repeats the thing to no end — Chinese must not come to power — except these days he has substituted local Chinese for China’s Chinese. But still Chinese. A matter of nationality difference is no difference because local Chinese were never considered as true Malaysians anyway. (Remember ‘pendatang’?) This, so convenient, is why the DAP, hankering after the Malay vote, that is, power, are into the same game. But, are today complaining that they, too, after having joined Mahathir in beating up China, had got nothing back from the Malays, not even a terima kasih. (See here, for example, and also Yeo Bee Yin.)

Why then is Ismail taken so seriously, meriting a personal response from Thaya?

The pivot of Thaya’s argument is this: Because Malays are considered bumiputra (bumi as in Mahathir’s bumi party Bersatu), “it is always the (Chinese and Indians) who have to prove that they are patriotic.” When Ismail says non-Malays, he meant Chinese, not the Orang Asli who don’t own businesses nor Kadazans who don’t go to Chinese schools, and not even the Indians. We, too, know all that.

Ismail Mani’s diatribe buttresses the central message of Umno’s (and past Mahathir) to the Malays, that is, never vote for the Chinese, not even friends. This is because, if the Chinese, were never patriotic, they, in their hearts, would never kneel to the Malay nor accept Malay superior status — in all respects, including king. To put it another way, by the fact of our existence, Chinese is a danger to the Malay, in everything. The point to which isn’t, however, in the fallacy of Umno’s making, and Mahathir’s, but in its flip side acknowledgement that no amount of apartheid and no amount of pressure applied on the Chinese, will make us kowtow to Malay power. Sixty years proved it. Ismail Mani just acknowledged it. Otherwise, why the threats?

Even Mahathir most lately has acknowledged that failure of Malay getting ahead of the Chinese as if it were fact. When Malays hadn’t progress far enough, it was because, he said, culture held them back. Tomorrow, having gotten the Malay vote, he could easily flip the argument to say, “True, it is culture but that was culture made in response to Chinese greed and Chinese malevolence. Malays are simply too innocent, too good and too pure to want to accept those Chinese values.”

All the tongkats he distributed had simply made life worse for the Malays but, in the end, he could simply revert to a time-honored Malaiyoo tradition: blame the Chinese. Because — and note this — he didn’t blame Najib Razak. Najib has gotten blamed for everything wrong with Malaysia, from diesel to government project failures. But where it concerns the Malay existential being — Islam, individual material progress, the retarded Malay mind and so on — he reserves judgment.

It wouldn’t be so bad if we Chinese were denied, say, subsidies or, as Ismail Mani threatens, no scholarship. Everything Umno did at present and Mahathir in past wasn’t just to improve the Malay lot; more than that, they did everything to block us, to put us down, our own schools, our language, our culture, our business, and especially our political rights.

But the situation has gotten worse because of this inescapable truth: Malay insists on comparing themselves to the Chinese. So that, if Malays are better off today than, say, a generation earlier, they would still be worse off than the Chinese. Therefore, Malays hadn’t progressed. That was, after all, Mahathir’s core message and Bersatu’s as well. It can’t be Najib’s fault because, to say that, comparing two time periods, it is to acknowledge Mahathir’s own failure.

Enter Ismail Mani, talking of denying scholarships and forcing Chinese businesses to employ Malays or else go to jail. In the circularity of the argument, the Malay is never satiated if the Chinese progress and not stand still. We Chinese will always be at fault. Always. It’s an impossible situation for the Chinese.

Ismail, you see, is picking up from where Bersatu/Mahathir/Umno left off. So that if Malays aren’t going to get the Chinese votes, and if Malays still have to rely on only Malay votes to stay in power — which is today distributed six ways — then they will fix the Chinese into subservience and into delivering.

(The terms Mahathir and Umno are used interchangeably because the like of Ismail Mani, talking of Malay absolute power, is, agree or not, the fruit of Mahathirism. Malays will never be satisfied simply because the endurance and the existence of the Chinese; the latter being the reflection of Malay delusion into their supreme status.)

All this has only one everlasting consequence. Until and unless the Chinese are broken, forced like Ridhuan Tee to masuk Malaiyoo, then made subservient, in schools, in language, in culture and religion, and in business, no Malay will ever progress. Which is good enough reason why, like Umno, Mahathir and Bersatu can never be trusted. These are not Umno rejects or traitors but they instead represent the sine qua non of Umno’s original ketuanan mission that Najib Razak failed to complete — for whatever reason. (Recall that when Mahathir began his anti-Najib campaign it was an exclusive Malay affair for the stated, expressed purpose of salvaging Umno that Mahathir himself said did not reflect on the Umno he knew. It was, he said, Najib’s party.)

Thaya is, therefore, right to assert that the Chinese and Indians will never be equal to Malays. Never. But that’s also not the point.

What he missed to see in Ismail and in the Malaiyoos is that they prefer to see a Chinese dead than patriotic. And the evidence of this? Each time, each time without exception, the Malaiyoo beats up the Chinese, the Harapan Malaiyoos and their Chinese/Indian hangers-on are muted. This can only be for the same reason Ismail is speaking up to the Malay electorate, the Malay kampung and Felda belt. Since the beginning of time, they have been convinced (by Umno, of course) to consider the Chinese as a bunch of whores (Petra Kamarudin), greedy profiteers (Mahathir), even dirty (Hishammuddin Hussein said that) and so on. PKR, Bersatu, Amanah, all dare not go for Ismail for the same reason Umno would not condemn him. Mahathir least of all because the words of Ismail Mani are his especially, updated 40, 50 years later only to suit the times and election year 2018.

Why should the Chinese be patriotic, therefore?

Because to be patriotic to Malaysia means, by Malaiyoo standards and definition, is to be loyal to Malays, to bow to Malays, to speak Malay, dress Malay, sing Malay only songs, hire Malays only, become Malays. Malaysia’s entire national identity is Malay so that in Tanah Melayu they would leave no place for the Chinese; it is exclusively Malay. We’re worse than second class citizens not just because our political rights have been disenfranchised but especially because we are made to not exist. We Chinese just don’t count, in everything that concerns Malaysia.

Mahathir et al has talked about this a thousand times so that today Najib prefers Chinese from China, who have more money, for his projects than the local Chinese who have little. Which, really, is all right by us; we are in it together. …?

So, Thaya, do you see the point in Ismail Mani’s bigotry? It is not to remind the Chinese their subservient, lowly position in Malaysia. That’s an old song. It is to reinforce a point in Mahathir’s The Malay Dilemma — put away the Chinese — and to warn us that if we Chinese don’t bow to Malays, and this includes who to vote, then everything will be taken from us. Annie of the Valley has made the same point: If you don’t vote Barisan or say good things of the government, it is likely you are unpatriotic. And she never, never, never says that to Malays who don’t vote Umno. Want to know why, Thaya?

Patriotic to Malaysia, did you say, Annie? Parliament is rigged, elections are rigged, five Chinese votes equal one Malay vote, Malays grab our banks, abduct our daughters, steal our dead, not to mention cell phones then shout ‘Cina pukul Melayu,’ forced us to sell our business…. And you still want patriotism?

Here’s our answer again, for the thousandth time, Annie: Patriotic, never. Fuck Malaysia, fuck the Malaiyoos. And go fuck your Malaiyoo father, too.

***

We Blew Up the Church.

So What, Yeo Bee Yin?

Taliban-style, did you say? Wrong, Hannah Yeoh. Taliban is child’s play. We’ll do worse because, Hannah, your God told us to blow up your church. It is a devil’s nest occupied by Jesus impostors, people like you.

Freedom from God: We had it with these religions, Christianity and Islam. Next, if Muslims don’t behave and believe and act as if they are superior to everybody else, we will, for good measure, blow up a fucking mosque that will even shock Donald Trump.

***

*

The article farther below, told by Cecilia Cheung, is taken from the NPR. Other than two or three dodgy assertions (like teaching ‘happiness’ to children, an utter absurdity), she is generally correct about the storybook ethical imperatives written by Chinese versus Americans who merely tell stories.

Making the comparison, Cheung misses a fundamental point: imbuing ethics into Chinese story telling is natural to us and is not just a tradition that’s as old as our civilization. When ethical telling becomes natural it makes nonsense of Cheung drawing ‘implications’ from the stories which children grow to internalize instead; they don’t merely learn. Children don’t care for ‘implications’ nor ‘happiness’ and can’t tell the difference.

In any case, that was how we Chinese had a built Jesus-free culture and so sustained a ‘secular’ ethical system absent in the West. The West, as represented by America, somehow lost all that purpose, considering the Brothers Grimm, for instance, who once told lovely, meaningful stories. Perhaps because too much of their lives were latched on to one dominant piece of giant fairy tale called the Bible. Once Dostoevsky and Nietzsche killed their Jehovah God, they could no more tell good stories.

From the NPR:

What are the hidden messages in the storybooks we read to our kids?

That’s a question that may occur to parents as their children dive into the new books that arrived over the holidays.

And it’s a question that inspired a team of researchers to set up a study. Specifically, they wondered how the lessons varied from storybooks of one country to another.

For a taste of their findings, take a typical book in China: The Cat That Eats Letters.

Ostensibly it’s about a cat that has an appetite for sloppy letters — “written too large or too small, or if the letter is missing a stroke,” explains one of the researchers, psychologist Cecilia Cheung, a professor at University of California Riverside. “So the only way children can stop their letters from being eaten is to write really carefully and practice every day.”

But the underlying point is clear: “This is really instilling the idea of effort — that children have to learn to consistently practice in order to achieve a certain level,” says Cheung. And that idea, she says, is a core tenet of Chinese culture.

The book is one of dozens of storybooks from a list recommended by the education agencies of China, the United States and Mexico that Cheung and her collaborators analyzed for the study.

They created a list of “learning-related” values and checked to see how often the books promoted them. The values included setting a goal to achieve something difficult, putting in a lot effort to complete the task and generally viewing intelligence as a trait that can be acquired through hard work rather than a quality that you’re born with.

The results — published in the Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology: The storybooks from China stress those values about twice as frequently as the books from the U.S. and Mexico.

Take another typical example from China — The Foolish Old Man Who Removed The Mountain, which recounts a folktale about a man who is literally trying to remove a mountain that’s blocking the path from his village to the city.

“Every day he has to dig some dirt from the mountain,” says Cheung.

The book celebrates perseverance, of course — but also another value Cheung and her collaborators tracked: steering clear of bad influences. As Cheung puts it, “avoiding a negative person and staying on track and not being distracted by things that would derail you from achieving your goals.”

In this case the man keeps on digging “even as he has to endure criticism from his fellow villagers who call him silly. And in the end he actually removes the mountain.”

By contrast, Cheung says a typical book from the U.S. is one called The Jar of Happiness.

“A little girl attempts to make a potion of happiness in a jar,” explains Cheung. Only to lose the jar. She’s really upset — until all her friends come to cheer her up. “At the end of the story she comes to the realization that happiness does not actually come from a jar of potion but from having good friends.”

Cheung says this emphasis on happiness comes up a lot in the books from the U.S. In some cases it’s overt – central to the plot of the story. But often it’s more subtle.

“They’ll just have a lot of drawings of children who are playing happily in all sorts of settings — emphasizing that smiling is important, that laughing is important, that being surrounded by people who are happy is important.”

The same held true of the books from Mexico.

“They’re just not so focused on the importance of achieving a particular goal or persisting so that you can overcome an obstacle. Those are much more emphasized in the storybooks from China.”

What are the implications?

Cheung notes that children in China consistently score higher on academic tests compared to children in the U.S. and Mexico. But she says more research is needed to determine how much of that is due to the storybooks or even to the larger differences in cultural values that the books reflect. Other completely unrelated factors, such as different teaching techniques could be at work.

In the meantime, Cheung says her study suggests all three cultures might have something to learn from each other.

For instance American parents might want to take a cue from Chinese storybooks and supplement their children’s reading with more tales that promote a view of intelligence as changeable.

After all, says Cheung, if you think intelligence is gained through effort, then when you’re confronted with a challenge or even an outright failure, “you just put more effort into it. You try to learn from the experience and you think about different ways of approaching the problem rather than saying, ‘No, I’m just not smart and I’m just going to give up right away.'”

Conversely, Chinese parents might want to learn from the American focus on encouraging children’s happiness and sense of connection to others. “This is something that’s really important to instill in children,” she says. “And happiness is also important when it comes to learning. It can be a predictor of future achievement.”

And lest you’ve been worrying about the fate of that cat — Cheung has reassuring news. Once the kids improve their handwriting, “the cat feels very hungry,” says Cheung. But then the kids take pity on him — and write a few sloppy letters for him to eat.

***